As the thread title notes I think it is time to take a look at prestige classes and give them some unchained love like our rogue friend. I didn't go through and count them but there must be something like 50 or so various prestige options. More even than we have options for base classes.
I have seen around these boards a lot that piazo's design philosophy revolves a lot more around reducing multiclasses and using archtypes as a way to do what prestige classes used to(I never played 3.5 so I can't speak to this but I'd imagine it is true). And while this is fairly understandable it seems really annoying to have a lot of character creation options that are realistically pointless.
Every once in a while I see a rare prestige class that is mentioned as actually being decent: champion or irori, loremaster, etc. However, far more often I see threads like X class obsolete, why would I ever play class Y, etc.
My personal biggest gripe and the one that really got me looking into the viability of the prestige classes is the duelist. I really want to like this guy but I for the life of me can't find a reason I would play it over a straight swashbuckler or something.
So my questions are: Is there anything out there that makes prestige classes better? Are there any plans to actually make them decent? Or are they doomed to wallow in the pits of inferiority for the rest of pathfinders days?
|
Prooobably doomed, is my impression. Paizo has definitely tried to move away from PrCs, which is part of why so many are hideously underpowered. Prestige classes were great in AD&D, pretty good in 3.5, sidelined in Pathfinder, and then kinda ignored in 5E - I think it's only going to get worse, frankly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes have taken the spot that prestige classes used to hold. back in 3.5, you didnt make it past level 3 without prestiging out to some class or another, often having 3-4 prestige classes alone by high levels.
Archetypes sought to replace that, doing away with annoying unrelated or nonoptimal requirements and letting you pursue your vision from level 1.
Prestiges are a holdover from 3.0/3.5 and I wouldnt expect to see them get much support
I would love more prestige classes. I end up making my own on occasion.
I'd love to see support for the prestige classes. Paizo is unlikely to do this, especially since their adding more to their workload right now.
Ultimate Prestige would likely be terrible and nerfed over and over again in ways that make things a waste of word count or completely different so the next new book looks better anyway. It's a Paizo tradition at this point.
Prestige classes were great in AD&D...
AD&D? The Bard? That was a terrible, dual-classing mess.
If you mean 2E, kits and specialty priests were pretty much exactly archetypes, rather than being comparable to PrC's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just leave this here.
Oh look. A soft cover of Golorian specific prestige classes. Divine only from the look of it. Now we just need a hard back making the old prestige classes worthwhile without tying them to a campaign setting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just leave this here.Oh look. A soft cover of Golorian specific prestige classes. Divine only from the look of it. Now we just need a hard back making the old prestige classes worthwhile without tying them to a campaign setting.
I believe the current philosophy is that prestige classes work best WHEN tied into a specific setting. If something is generic, its best to have either a full class or archetype for that concept, so folks can play it from level one.
Personally I would prefer most (all?) of the prestige classes in APG and the core rulebook to be upgraded to regular classes.
Divine only from the look of it.
Not remotely..... read through the chat
back in 3.5, you didnt make it past level 3 without prestiging out to some class or another, often having 3-4 prestige classes alone by high levels.
You didn't? I must have been playing D&D wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically we got most of our prestige classes unchained. Unchained means what would paizo do if not constrained with backwards compatability. They have mostly given us their own version of the classic prestige classes as base classes or archetypes.
Arcane Archer - Eldritch Archer Magus
Arcane Trickster - Any number of bard archetypes that are roguey
Assassin - Ninja
Dragon Disciple - Blood Rager
Duelist - Swashbuckler
Eldritch Knight - Magus
Mystic Theruge - Witch or the Shaman
PrC are not liked by paizo. Reason is that they have to be competitive at the earliest possible entry. For most that is lv6. Lv1 PrC is about as good at going from 5 to 6 in the entry class. Then you take it for a few levels. And now you're stuck as lv15. There are no prestige classes for lv15, another prestige classes lv1 are about as strong as a lv6 ability, so that's not helpful at lv16. And going back to your entry class is the same story.
Or if you have delayed entry, say getting 3rd level spells. The prestige class is set for lv6 entry by a wizard. so the lv6 sorcerer going into it at lv7 is getting a lv6 ability again. And the bard is getting an even worse trade.
Combo this with the fact that PrC usually needs you to combine 2 classes together, so you're even weaker, and then the PrC aren't overpowered to compensate leaves you just weaker.
I could see reducing the entry requirements (so that you can take 1st level in most of them at 4th rather than 6th character level) of prestige classes and spreading out their progressions from 10 to 15 levels as one way to make them competitive with base classes.
Didn't Inner Sea Intrigue introduce two new prestige classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, the slayer could stand to distance itself from the assassin. As it is now, it tends to get pigeonholed into assassin things when archetypes come around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why it should be distance it self from the assassin, it can get the assassinate ability, which was originally only available to Assassin class. that was the whole point of going into the PRC class. the name it self slayer suggest it does that. it kills things. i think the slayer was actually made to replicate/emulate the assassins from assassin creed game.
But it limits what the class can do, by pigeonholing it. It's not like all of the inquisitor archetypes are focused on stamping out heresy.
Wait, you mean some of them use pillows and comfy chairs for this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Kolokotroni said, most of them have been redone as archtypes or as whole new classes. Slayer fits the Assassin role also. The rest need to follow suit and become alternate class, hybrid classes or Archetypes
Hell, knight could easily become archetype or alternate class of Paladin.
Red Mantis assassin: slayer archtype
ect. ect. This is how they need to unchain the rest of them. More PRC are not needed just new archtypes are alternate classes.
The Red Mantis Assassin is actually a good example of something that should be a prestige class. It's a specialized set of training tied to a specific group in a specific campaign setting.
So I suppose the question I should have asked is should the prestige classes remain in their current state? There are a few that still bring interesting or unique mechanics to the table, but by and large most of the time it isn't worth pursuing them.
Others like red mantis assassin, duelist, etc have already had a lot of their unique class abilities poached by standard classes and I imagine it is only going to continue.
So far I've seen people suggest:
Making them level 1-20 classes,
Decreasing their entry requirements
Buffing them as is
Leaving them be
Speaking personally I'd probably prefer the 1st or 3rd solution. And I'd be curious to see if anyone has some some homebrew creations along those lines?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Red Mantis Assassin is actually a good example of something that should be a prestige class. It's a specialized set of training tied to a specific group in a specific campaign setting.
+1 on that. Some of the other Paizo prestige classes also fit this description, although the implementation may have flaws. The more generic prestige classes should probably be converted away from being prestige classes (usually using archetypes). On the other hand, some things that aren't prestige classes SHOULD BE prestige classes, although obviously legacy issues stand in the way. For instance, what religion in their right mind would let some untested 1st level worshipper become a holy warrior (Paladin/Antipaladin) or quasi-above-the-law behind-the-scenes hunter of threats within the church (Inquisitor)? Paladin/Antipaladin should be a set of Holy Warrior classes made like a remix of Hellknight and D&D Unearthed Arcana/Kirthfinder Prestige Paladin; Inquisitor should likewise be a prestige class (but save the Inquisitor chassis to remix with Warpriest to make the new more interesting Cleric base class).
By that logic, every divine class should be a prestige class.
^That thought has some merit to it (see below). But Paladins/Antipaladins are supposed to be so much more exemplary, and Inquisitors get to go "above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church", that they need much more testing than a beginning priest (d6 1/2 BAB Cleric reload, or Warpriest/Inquisitor chassis without Inquisitor fluff remix). Of course, this is probably Pathfinder 2.0 territory . . . .
But now that you mention it, I have been toying with the idea that all the base classes actually become prestige classes that have really low entry requirements, such that they can potentially be met by a single level of racial Hit Dice levels . . . And EVERYBODY gets racial Hit Dice, which for Core Humanoids manifest in the form of reworked forms of the classes traditionally considered NPC classes (Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, Adept, and Warrior) -- these would be reworked so that they give useful abilities that also serve as easy entry into their associated PC base classes, and 1 level is considered 0 level and normally considered to be under your belt so that you start at 1st level and usually in 1st level of a PC class, unless you are doing a weird build; but the option would exist to start play at 0th level. But now we're talking probably not just Pathfinder 2.0, but Pathfinder 3.0 territory . . . .
...I like it.
paladins are empowered by Law and Good not a church.
^I know that's what is said, but it feels wrong that only the 2 particular combinations Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil get this (until very recently with the Tyrant and Insinuator Antipaladin archetypes and even more recently the Grey Paladin archetype. And even so, why would Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil allow any random warrior-philosopher who hasn't been tested enough to get past 1st level become their warrior exemplars? The way Hellknights are done makes a lot more sense thematically, even if the mechanics need updating to work properly with some of the more recent material.
they're not "any random warrior-philosopher"; they are paladins. they are exemplary and have therefore been imbued with power by whatever it is that wills the primal energies to do what they do.
perhaps that doesn't work for you. thats cool. i go back and forth myself. the point is that it can make sense depending on your point of view.
it probably bears mentioning that all the classes are intended to be comparably exemplary in their own ways at level 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
paladins are empowered by Law and Good not a church.
Well, they *can* be. Plenty of paladins receive their powers from a deity, and even have different paladin codes than the base code of conduct as a result.
they're not "any random warrior-philosopher"; they are paladins. they are exemplary and have therefore been imbued with power by whatever it is that wills the primal energies to do what they do.
{. . .}
Yes, but by definition, being at 1st level, they haven't been well-tested in the field -- otherwise, they would be at a higher level, unless they ran up against a ceiling of promotion to level of incompetence and then just managed to get an unlock for further progression at the start of the campaign (cue threads about how middle-aged characters can be 1st level despite having had many years of experience that shows up in their backgroud . . .), and if they were stuck up against a ceiling of level of incompetence for that long, by definition they aren't very exemplary with regard to practical testing, even if their morals are unimpeachable, and need further testing to see what they will do with a modicum of real power beyod the beginner level.
Paladins being Paladins from 1st level is a legacy issue, that goes all the way back to 1st Edition AD&D (which didn't have prestige classes in name, although the 1st Edition Bard was a clumsy precursor to prestige classes).
I always thought the standard CE anti-paladin was misplaced. The default alignment should be LE.
^I've actually heard this thought from others a LONG time ago (like back in the 1980s). A default Lawful Evil Antipaladin would make sense . . . Except for the issue that Paladin/Antipaladin still should really be part of a set of prestige classes like Hellknight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a bit of an unfortunate one - I can see why the antipaladin was put as CE because the paladin is always considered to be LG..... but this ends up with the problem that one class is defined entirely by the alignment of another class which is a bit crap!
Thematically on the other hand the paladin and antipaladin are essentially the same thing but merely have different end goals..
Paladins believe in the rule of good....hence LG
Anti-Paladins believe in the rule of evil.....hence LE
Unfortunately CE ultimately only stands for anarchy in the name of evil! There is no method, rule or strategy!
paladins are empowered by Law and Good not a church.Well, they *can* be. Plenty of paladins receive their powers from a deity, and even have different paladin codes than the base code of conduct as a result.
Yes, but by definition, being at 1st level, they haven't been well-tested in the field -- otherwise, they would be at a higher level, unless they ran up against a ceiling of promotion to level of incompetence and then just managed to get an unlock for further progression at the start of the campaign (cue threads about how middle-aged characters can be 1st level despite having had many years of experience that shows up in their backgroud . . .), and if they were stuck up against a ceiling of level of incompetence for that long, by definition they aren't very exemplary with regard to practical testing, even if their morals are unimpeachable, and need further testing to see what they will do with a modicum of real power beyod the beginner level.
Paladins being Paladins from 1st level is a legacy issue, that goes all the way back to 1st Edition AD&D (which didn't have prestige classes in name, although the 1st Edition Bard was a clumsy precursor to prestige classes).
well sure. and they can be a prestige class. the point is they don't need a church for their power so they don't need to be "tested". you can always require this of paladins in your own campaign or setting, but to argue that they should be a prestige class because your idea of a paladin wouldn't be able to start as one is silly. they can be a prestige class if that's what you want. they currently aren't and many people don't see a problem with this. they aren't wrong and neither are you.
^I'm not saying that something couldn't commission Paladins and Inquisitors from 1st level, just that it wouldn't be a good idea, regardless of whatever that is being a church or something far more intangible. I've even toyed with the idea of Base Class Paladins and Prestige Class Paladins both existing in the same world, and most deities have quit commissioning Base Class Paladins ("they keep falling"), although a few are still around, except that one deity who is in really desperate straits (in Golarion, this would be Iomedae) thinks that the risk is worthwhile and continues to commission Base Class Paladins.
gotcha. in my own setting nothing commissions paladins. they are empowered by the strength of their conviction, and they lose their powers when they feel guilt (not really limited to guilt per se, but i'm struggling to find a better way to describe it). the setting also ignores alignment and the paladin class is replaced with crusaders of justice, freedom, tyranny, or destruction (paladins are an order of crusaders of justice and freedom). so i have no problem with level 1 paladins because there is no external force granting them powers.
i did toy with the idea of prestige paladins, though, back when i got unearthed arcana. at the time i also felt like it shouldn't be a base class. tbh, i still go back and forth with that, but atm the above is what i'm going with.
edit: to expand on the "guilt" concept. a dominated paladin might lose their powers depending on how they felt about what they did. i expect most paladins of justice (and probably freedom) would likely feel guilty for a code infraction regardless of having been dominated, but i doubt the others would.